Why are pedestrians rarely at fault in a collision with a...

Post Reply New Topic

...car?

Its not fair. Obviously, the driver of the car has lots of responsibilty since he/she actually had to take tests to get a licence but what about idiots who don't bother to look both ways before crossing?

I remember one time in a parking lot where I almost forgot to stop for this girl crossing the road. Now, it might have been my fault for failing to see the girl crossing but then the whole time, she was staring at her phone texting and never looked up. Honestly, if I had crashed into her, she would have never looked up even the split second before the collision. Even though it was a pedestrian crossing area, pedestrians need to look both ways before crossing the road.

Last edited by jc6chan on 09 Mar 2010, 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

9/10 they aren't supposed to cross where they have

This is especially annoying on school campuses. I've been on a bus that has the come to a literally screeching halt because some guy slowly wandered across the street no where near anything that even resembled a crosswalk, completely engrossed in texting. Didn't even look up at the bus skidding to a stop a few feet from him. Though on the flip side there are idiotic drivers that completely ignore crosswalks. I've actually kicked the tail light out of a car that almost hit me on a crosswalk, it was quite satisfying.

On the plus side, I live in an area where people on bikes and longboards are held fully accountable for breaking traffic laws. Here it's pretty much "If you're on a wheeled mode of transportation, you're a vehicle" (with the obvious exception of roller blades/skates). Just a couple of months ago, there was a girl that ran a stop sign, got hit by a car, and then, while she was in traction in the hospital, she got a ticket for failing to abide by a traffic control device, and a bill for the dent she left in the hood of the car.

Wow, just based on the title of this thread, I knew you were from Toronto or at least Canada.

Canadians are notorious for not looking both ways. I've known people who have moved to Canada from a bunch of countries and all of them were terrified to drive here because people have no sense of self preservation. I was partly terrified and partly pissed off, because if there's enough width for a car between pedestrians while turning right at an intersection, I want to use the space to drive through, but people just keep walking and are shocked if I actually try to squeeze in.

I know eh?

While I think that pedestrians often make foolish decisions, driving is the privilege and the responsibility of doing so responsibly is the job of the driver. That means being aware of one's surroundings and acting accordingly. Given the potential speed of an approaching car, expecting a passerby to be able to identify, plan, react and evade is unreasonable. Ultimately, I consider it part of the price one pays for the the ability to motor and move faster. Trade-off.


M.

BS. The only time a pedestrian doesn't have time to react to a vehicle is if the vehicle is doing something completely unpredictable like running a red light, or if you happen to live in Monaco during F1 season. Short of that, there is no reason both pedestrian and driver should not see each other at about the same time, with the driver being seen slightly earlier because of a larger profile and noise signature. If at the time that happens, the pedestrian is already in the road, it's the driver's responsibility. However, the situations under discussion here are not the ones where the pedestrian is already in the road at that point, it's the ones where the pedestrian steps off the curb *after* that point, implying the person wasn't even looking.

To respond in kind, bollocks. At the very first, I pointed out that pedestrians do foolish things - but that the responsibility remains with the driver. The driver -should- be more aware, as their sole focus should be on the navigation of the vehicle where a person on the sidewalk or other common area by the road is not. The pedestrian should be seen first, as that is the driver's job to be looking for obstacles and potential issues. And depending on the vehicle, setting, and situation, the usefulness of a "noise signature" can be nonexistent. Don't want to be responsible for it? Simple - don't drive. Pretty straightforward. Does not make the pedestrian any less of a prat for their part in the situation, and in some cases they do share responsibility. But if you don't want the burden of driving, the answer is clear - don't get behind the wheel.


M.

As a driver you should keep a look out for people who are crossing or on the side of the road and make sure they don't come out in front of you. Just because you have a green light and someone is crossing doesn't mean you should keep going. You should stop and wait till they are out of the way. It's called defensive driving.

If I have a green light and someone decides to cross the street, I make sure there is no ambiguity about how I feel about the situation. If they're close enough to the curb to turn around and go back, I honk at them and keep going, with the expectation that they will get out of the way. If they don't get out of the way, I don't hit them, I either go around them or I stop. Very few collisions occur between two parties who are fully aware of each other.

The driver does have responsibility. However the driver doesn't have some special degree of it simply because he is driving a larger and faster machine. Both driver and pedestrian should be aware of their surroundings to the greatest degree they're able to. Both should be able to compensate if the other party falls short, in the interest of self preservation (and in the case of the driver, compassion and wealth preservation). Let's set aside the noise signature and the fact that in real life, an aware pedestrian will see a vehicle very slightly before an aware driver will see the pedestrian (the pedestrian is just as responsible for being aware as the driver is, and the car is bigger) and say for the sake of argument that they will both see each other at the same time. Then they're both responsible for not having a collision. Pretty simple.

I also have to point out that a significant portion of pedestrian accidents (I forget the statistics) occur at night between a pedestrian wearing dark clothing and a vehicle.

Again, both are responsible. But if a pedestrian hits a car, the car gets scratched. If a car hits a pedestrian, the pedestrian gets hurt, maimed or killed. Be default, the greater responsibility lies with the one bearing the cudgel than the one walking unarmed as it were. And if you're going to assert your opinions as factual, then I would ask for some relevant study that confirms the argument that the pedestrian should be and is aware of the vehicle before the driver would be aware of the obstacles directly in front of his or her path of travel.


M.

There is a place where pedestrians can't be expected to cross safely due to the speed of traffic. That place is called a freeway. Pedestrians don't cross it.

You're still not explaining why the driver has more responsibility, you're only asserting that he does.

It takes nothing more than common sense, not any ingenuity, to understand why a pedestrian would see a car first.

In most states in the US that I am familiar with, pedestrians are forbidden from freeway areas; if they are present there, then they become liable for themselves due to trespassing violations.


M.

Added to my post above.

Please explain why the pedestrian bearing the brunt of the impact would make the driver more responsible than the pedestrian.

If the pedestrian takes no notice of cars on the road, why should it be the driver's fault?

Yes, car drivers should drive defensively and take note of their surroundings, but if someone runs onto the road out of nowhere, how is it the driver's fault?

Every situation should be taken on its own merit analyzing exactly what happened in that situation. It shouldn't be an almost blanket rule that the driver is at fault.